Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 229 (ALL)

Surendra Singh Greta v. State of U. P.

2008-01-30

RUVINDRA SINGH

body2008
RAVINDRA SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Surendra singh Greta with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 179 of 2007 under section 302 IPC P. S. Heempur district Bijnor. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story in brief is that the FIR of this case has been lodged by munna Singh on 10. 3. 2007 at 5. 00 p. m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 10. 3. 2007, the distance of the police station was about 20 k. m. from the alleged place of occurrence. The applicant and the co-accused Pramod Surya are named in the fir. It is alleged that one day prior the alleged incident i. e. on 9. 3. 2007 the first informant, his nephew and the deceased Sunil kumar alias Bablu and Kailash were sitting on Poonam Studio, at that time dushyant, owner of the studio was present there, meanwhile the co-accused Pramod surya and Sunil came at that shop and told that they have to drop quilt and cushion (Lihaf and Gudda) at the farm house of the applicant, at about 6. 30 p. m. two vehicles loaded with quilt and cushion came there in which they boarded it and left the shop of studio. The first informant also left the shop and went to his village but the deceased did not come in the night, the first informant along with other villagers went in search of the deceased, on 10. 3. 2007 when they were going towards Jalilpur, they met with Sudhir Kumar and Kailash, they were apprised by Sudhir that Sunil has been killed by the applicant and co-accused pramod Surya at his Dera Greta Farm and thereafter his dead body has been thrown into a Jungle by his vehicle, then the first informant and other persons reached in jangle in search of the dead body of the deceased and found the dead body lying there. The applicant has asked to pay Rs. 10 lacs for making false allegation against Sherbaz, chairman of Chandpur, who was having enmity with him. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained one gun shot wound of entry. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions judge, Bijnor who rejected the same on 31. 10. 2007, being aggrieved from the order dated 31. 10. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the post-mortem examination report the deceased has sustained one gun shot wound of entry. The applicant applied for bail before the learned Sessions judge, Bijnor who rejected the same on 31. 10. 2007, being aggrieved from the order dated 31. 10. 2007, the present bail application has been filed by the applicant. ( 4 ) HEARD Sri V. M. Zaidi, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Sukesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the complainant. ( 5 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that: 1. That the applicant was having no motive or intention to commit the murder of the deceased. There is no eyewitness to show that the deceased was murdered thereafter his dead body was thrown into the jungle. 2. That the dead body of the deceased was found within the area of police station hastinapur, therefore, the case was registered at P. S. Hastinapur without mentioning the case crime number. The investigation of the case was taken into the hand by the police of police station Hastinapur but during investigation it was revealed that the offence was committed within the area of P. S. Heempur, then the investigation was transferred to P. S. Heempur who recorded the statement of the first informant and other witnesses namely sudhir and Kailash on 4. 6. 2007 who changed the earlier statement given to the first IO alleging that the said incident has taken place at Ballia Mandir where the firing has taken place between two groups, one headed by the applicant and second headed by priyanka Chaudhary, relying upon the statement recorded under section 161 cr. P. C. the second I. O. concluded investigation by making its entry in parcha No. 9 of the case diary on 11. 4. 2007 but on account of political pressure yielded by Priyanka chaudhary the investigation of the case was transferred to Sri J. P. Singh, station Officer of P. S. Hastinapur district meerut who proceeded with the investigation and recorded the statements of babu Singh, Jangha Singh and Sardar Singh and others who found that the alleged incident has taken place at Ballia Mandir in village sirjotpur district Meerut. In the said incident one Mahesh alias Bhura had also sustained injury, who was medically examined at P. N. Sharma Hospital, Meerut on the same day, brought by the police, but his injury report was not made part of the investigation and he was not interrogated under section 161 Cr. P. C. The applicant and the coaccused Pramod surya caused injury by their fire-arms but nothing has been recovered from the farm house of the applicant to show that the firing was done even according to the postmortem examination report the deceased has sustained only one gun shot wound of entry, it has not been specified as to who caused in shot injury. There is no independent witness. The witnesses mentioned in the FIR are close relatives of the deceased, the applicant has been falsely implicated in some other criminal case also on account of enmity and political rivalry. The applicant is not a Land Mafia. He is in jail since 6. 10. 2007, he may be released on bail. In reply to the above contention, it is submitted by the learned AGA and the learned Counsel for the complainant-(1) That in the present case the deceased has been killed by the applicant and other co-accused so that his arch enemy chairman of Chandpur may be falsely implicated for which he offered rs. 10 Lacs to the first informant, the deceased was murdered and thereafter his dead body was thrown into a jungle, there is evidence to show that the deceased has also gone to the farm house of the applicant to unload the quilt and cushion. (2) The witness Kailash and Sudhir are the eyewitness, their statements have been recorded on the same day after lodging the FIR they have clearly stated that the deceased was killed by the applicant and the co-accused pramod Surya, both of them discharged the shot at the deceased Sunil consequently he sustained injuries and died instantaneously. The applicant and other co-accused extended threat to those witnesses and they were asked to make allegation of committing murder of the deceased against Sherbaz, chairman Chandpur and offered Rs. 10 lacs for this purpose otherwise they would also be killed. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was kept in a jeep by the applicant and co-accused pramod Surya and it was taken to the jungle where it was thrown. 10 lacs for this purpose otherwise they would also be killed. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was kept in a jeep by the applicant and co-accused pramod Surya and it was taken to the jungle where it was thrown. (3) That the applicant is a harden criminal. He is involved in many criminal cases. He has influenced the investigating officer so that new version may come up to some extent, he has been charge sheeted. The applicant is a history sheeter. He is having a registered gang No. D10 and his history sheet No. is 53a. He was involved in 35 criminal cases including the present case, the last I. O. Sri S. S. Rathore has collected the evidence against the applicant and came to the conclusion that it was the applicant who has fired upon the deceased, the death of the deceased was not the outcome of any other firing which has taken place between the two rival groups headed by the applicant and Priyanka Chaudhari. The learned aga has submitted the gang chart of the applicant in which 30 cases are shown against the applicant and in the counter affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the complainant as C. A. 1, 35 cases including the present case have been shown against the applicant. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he shall tamper with the evidence. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING the nature of allegations made against the applicant and the manner in which the deceased was murdered by the applicant and the co-accused and the manner in which the investigation was done which shows that the applicant has tried his best to influence the investigation and the applicant is having a registered gang, he is a history sheeter, is involved in number of criminal cases as pointed out by the learned a. G. A. and learned Counsel for the complainant, and to ensure the fair trial, it is not proper to release the applicant on bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is refused. Accordingly this application is rejected. Application rejected. . .